Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The geographical area proposal covers the Maya Biosphere Reserve, one of the most extensive wooded areas of the Mesoamerican Region
Evidence B:The project area (428,000 ha) is inside the Maya Biosphere Reserve, a UNESCO heritage site, with considerable forests and biodiversity, including threatened and endangered species (jaguar, tapir, peccary) as well as the last remaining protected stands of mahogany in the region.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Ecosystems rainforest proposed for conservation and sustainable use are productive and maintain healthy levels of conservation despite use practices represent an area of high bioloógica and cultural diversity of IPLC
Evidence B:The EOI does not mention the carbon density of the project area, the supporting spatial resources show it to be moderate or high. The EOI states that ACOFOP is engaged in a REDD+ project projected to reduce 37 million tons of GHG over a thirty year period.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The proposed areas are under management IPLC with concession systems, the ownership of the Guatemalan State are concessions given time and codncionado to forest eplotacion, with little attention of traditional knowledge systems for biodiversity management and systems IPLC own governance. figures are Western institutions such as associations and / or cooperatives
Evidence B:The communities united in ACOFOP have been managing the community forest concessions in the Peten for more than 25 years, and are actively managing and monitoring their forests for timber and non timber resources. Some of the communities in ACOFOP use indigenous traditional conservation practices, others use more modern systems.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: It has proposed an approach to the system of organization of local communities and official legal figures in Guatemala. And cultural identity of the IPLC approach established in the area and cultural benefits are not addressed. Staking is important cultural, economic and fortifications of knowledge and practices that benefit traditional values.
Evidence B:In addition to the unique biodiversity of the area and the important model constituted by the community forest concessions, the area also holds unique archeological sites, including a number of ancient Mayan cities.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The area exposed eta even accelerated use change the soil, especially press deforestation and deterioration of biodiversity.
Evidence B:The EOI details a series of serious threats to the areas forests including: forest fires, illegal activity (narcotraffic), mega development projects, oil extraction, expansion of cattle ranching and oil palm production.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: There is limited tenure rights and own forms of organization of the IPLC. It has been generating a strong social fabric in defense of territoriality and potentiates achieve better conditions IPLC substantive rights.
Evidence B:Public policy in Guatemala is a mixed bag, with many positive elements, including the whole Peten community forest concessions experience, but continued challenges in land insecurity, lack of law enforcement, corruption and cronyism, and continued structural discrimination against indigenous people. The community concessions themselves are currently facing substantial uncertainty in terms of their long term approval by government.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Limited political Guatemalan in matters of rights of IPLC has shown a RAN will to maintain sustainable use practices on models of forest concessions organizations IPLC, this has represented a broad effort CONAP in the exercise and preservation of the Reserve Maya Biosphere.
Evidence B:The Government of Guatemala has implemented the community concessions in the Peten, supported ACOFOP (to some extent) in developing REDD+ projects and fostering community management of the forest resources in the concessions.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Practices sustainable forest management organizations IPLC in the Peten are a benchmark of sustainability and possibility of economic development for communities.
Evidence B:ACOFOP’s highly successful model of community based forest management is well established and well known throughout the region and an important model for the region and the world.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: The approach of community forest management is unclear in which to ACOFOC organizations and have all the action caracteriscas synergies
Evidence B:There are a number of complementary projects financing ACOFOP’s work, including by FAO, CLUA and the Ford Foundation.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: Generally speaking properly aligned, however it is necessary to explore strengthening governance systems themselves that may lead to a complete re engineering the ecosystem management by improving conditions for traditional knowledge and practices of sustainable use of biodiversity.
Evidence B:The ACOFOP model, and the proposed project, is very aligned to the ICI goals, as it is based in community led conservation actions for the largest area of forest remaining in Guatemala.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: It will be necessary in addressing land rights, pay to the promotion and recovery of systems and practices traditional use of biodiversity as an identity of territoriality.
Evidence B:The EOI presents clear objectives and activities well designed to achieve the expected results.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: strengthen the rights of communities in the Peten IPLC has demonstrated ensure the protection of ecosystems and maintain optimal levels of forest cover.
Evidence B:The project proposes consolidating the model of forest governance advanced by ACOFOP over the two decades or more through advocacy and dialogue with the state, and strengthening local forest governance through a series of investments in women, youth, and technical capacity of the member organizations.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: 0
Evidence B:The EOI does not present a specific budget for the proposed activities, but certifies they are achievable in the given budget range and notes a series of other projects with a similar budget range.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: Resource mapping co-financing is explained. Likewise they show a high level of certainty actualize these synergies technical and financial type.
Evidence B:The EOI describes significant co-finance from a variety of sources- the European Union, FAO, CLUA, and the Ford Foundation as well as extensive in kind contributions from member organizations and communities.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: less moderate scale to 500 thousand ha is expected, but its impact is greater as shares armorguamiento pressure on strategic areas of the Maya Biosphere Reserve.
Evidence B:The project area is defined as 428,000 ha.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Direct indicators on the cultural dynamics are slightly addressed, could profundizaré from the integral concept of cultural development of the IPLC
Evidence B:The project will make a direct contribution to the livelihoods of the communities associated in ACOFOP, contributing to a variety of forest friendly sustainable businesses including timber, non timber products and eco-tourism.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: 0
Evidence B:The project seeks to ensure the renewal of the community forest concessions in the Peten, which would secure those lands for another 25 years, but also advance the long term definitive legal recognition for community rights to those lands and forests.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: 0
Evidence B:The project seeks to advance the conservation of Guatemala’s largest protect area so is well aligned with CONAP priorities as well as the National Biodiversity Action Plan and the National REDD= Strategy.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Work experience in the area, can provide greater strategic prfundizacion of codnciones gender in actions for conservation and sustainable use of forest biodiversity, it is advisable to attend traditional systems of conocimeintos use the forest exercising women, the elderly and other sectors of the IPLC.
Evidence B:Gender considerations are mainstreamed into the proposal which includes significant detail on specific activities to strengthen women’s capacity, leadership, business development and participation.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The emphasis on community forest management is highly demonstrable, with a high tendency of timber category requires greater integration of biodiversity in a targeted manner in the livelihoods of IPCL
Evidence B:Consolidating the successful model of community forest concessions and securing a sustainable future for them is an innovative way to achieve transformation impacts at scale.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The proposal is brewing from organizational models IPLC, demanding land rights and natural resources
Evidence B:ACOFOP is a representative organization comprising 15 community based organizations, among them cooperatives and associations and women’s organizations.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: 0
Evidence B:ACOFOP has led the communities in the Peten forest concessions for decades and has a well established track record of leadership and good work.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: 0
Evidence B:ACOFOP lists its organization members, co-executors of the proposed project who would play critical roles in each of the project components.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: 0
Evidence B:The EOI describes an extensive staff (42 people) with a wide range of technical skills including community governance, forest management, climate change, administration, and monitoring and evaluation.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: 0
Evidence B:ACOFOP meets all three criteria.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Not
Evidence B:Applicant answered no, but ACOFOP has experience with European Union and USAID project.